The Absurdity of Atheism

[NM505StKate]

Because non-belief is unreflective apathy. It’s a fault. Humans who do not reflect on the meaning of the universe and their lives do not exist in the end.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Apathy to what?

 

[NM505StKate]

We grasp what atheism is, and we may grasp why an individual is an atheist.
Not sure what you are frustrated with though. You don’t accept our beliefs over your own, so we disagree on beliefs.
A theist presents evidence for our deity, you reject it.
Why should you be frustrated?

What evidence? No one has presented any evidence.

 

[Lucretius]

Apathy to what?

It doesn’t care about the answer. The atheist says " I don’t care whether God exists or not." No one can exist in such a state. God ends up forcing us to reflect eventually, and then we decide: is the heart of the world beating or bleeding? Is the cat in the box dead or alive? Will I find Yahweh in the box, or Moloch? We must embrace Christ and raise to heaven, or embrace Nothing and fall to hell…

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

What evidence? No one has presented any evidence.

What is evidence?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[clem456]

What evidence? No one has presented any evidence.

The evidence is presented, you reject it. Fair enough.
Evidence in your book must be in your face physical evidence?

Prove love exists.
Prove the moon is behind the earth right now.
Prove it. Show us.

Interesting…atheists and fundamentalist religious types, are of the same mind, differing only in conclusions. Both accept only what they can point to and understand, and so limit themselves.

Atheists
Fundamentalists

Strange bedfellows.

 

[An_Atheist]

Atheism can be attacked on many fronts?

What good does it do?

Does it explain anything?

Is it rational?

Is it beautiful?

Is it moral?

Etc., etc.

The narrow prospects of atheism are obvious and disappointing. It leads nowhere, but follows every man’s whim to escort his own descent toward purposeless and despair.

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.”
-George Bernard Shaw

Our species wonders about the universe. We wonder why we’re here, and we wonder if there’s a purpose.

When it comes to these questions, I am truly agnostic. The logical side of me sees absolutely no evidence for a purpose or a higher power, but the emotional side of me wants there to be.

Do I accept the answers provided by religion? No, because a dude in a fancy hat has no more authority to answer these questions than I do.

The real issue is the fear of death. Modern man turns a blind eye to the scientific blunders and the contradictions and the moral problems in his religion because he wants to believe he’ll continue existing. Your post is evidence of this.

But what is there to fear? We experience death every night. Except for those brief moments when we dream, sleep is pretty much what death is: a cessation of consciousness. You close your eyes, and poof. Eight hours have gone by in an instant. You didn’t experience those eight hours because there was no “you” *to *experience them.

I fear not death, for when I exist, death does not, and when death exists, I do not.

 

[DCNBILL]

I need more context.

Context?

If I asked you if you thought that some people are taller than others would you ask for more context?

I believe that you know where I am going and you are reluctant to follow. That is ok and in a way good for you, may your journey be complete.

 

[NM505StKate]

It doesn’t care about the answer. The atheist says " I don’t care whether God exists or not." No one can exist in such a state. God ends up forcing us to reflect eventually, and then we decide: is the heart of the world beating or bleeding? Is the cat in the box dead or alive? Will I find Yahweh in the box, or Moloch? We must embrace Christ and raise to heaven, or embrace Nothing and fall to hell…

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Ah Pascal’s Wager. Many atheists exist in a state of “I don’t believe in any gods”. They are usually also humanists. Through empathy and social contract they help others.

 

[NM505StKate]

The evidence is presented, you reject it. Fair enough.
Evidence in your book must be in your face physical evidence?

God is able to interact with the physical world so there should be physical evidence.

Prove love exists

Love is a chemical reaction that happens in our brains.

Prove the moon is behind the earth right now.

We have satellites that can show where the moon is.

 

[An_Atheist]

We grasp what atheism is, and we may grasp why an individual is an atheist.
Not sure what you are frustrated with though. You don’t accept our beliefs over your own, so we disagree on beliefs.
A theist presents evidence for our deity, you reject it.
Why should you be frustrated?

I’m frustrated with this:

You don’t accept our beliefs over your own, so we disagree on beliefs.

Atheism is not a belief, nor is it a religion. It’s a non-belief.

If you think that atheism is a “belief,” then please tell me your definition of a non-believing, non-religious person, and then please tell me the difference between that fellow and me, an atheist.

 

[antunesaa]

She may or may not have hundreds of friends, but I have three close friends who are atheists and they are all quite humble and definitely more fulfilled in their lives than I am. Indian atheists maybe slightly different, because they all perform any religious ceremonies that their parents require of them without complaining too much (but they don’t hide their atheism). The reason they are fulfilled is because material success as well as family and fiends are enough for them (as they are for most people).

I don’t think atheism is absurd at all, it is far more rational and logical than theism. My belief is totally based on emotion and some personal experiences (which can easily be explained away by science). But being a believer has not helped me that much, neither material success (such as it is) nor family and friends have been enough to fulfill me. So maybe theism is not that great after all (except in a foxhole - as they say, there are no atheists in foxholes)

Well I think atheism from a rational perspective is basically bankrupt. You have to abandon important tenets of rationality to accept atheism as a viable world view. For example, in order to counter strong philosophical arguments for theism - like those of the first mover or the Kalam argument - atheist philosophers have tried to diminish the relevance of the principle of causality, that is, the assumption that in the natural world all contingent things have a cause. Hume even argued that because uncaused contingent things can be imagined, then the principle of causality could be doubted. But he failed to provide a single instance of that. Another example is the drive of modern cosmology towards multiverses. There is no compelling evidence of their existence other than the need to rationalize the fact that the known universe seems fine tuned. This is pseudo-science because it yields no testable propositions. The problem with abandoning the principle of causality is that all science is based upon it. If you can say that “this ball popped out of non-existence” then you diminish spectacularly the credibility of science as an human construct to pierce into the mysteries of the natural world. Notice that miracles do not pose a threat to that credibility because they are precisely the intervention in the natural world of the non-contingent being we call God.

 

[An_Atheist]

The evidence is presented, you reject it. Fair enough.
Evidence in your book must be in your face physical evidence?

Prove love exists.
Prove the moon is behind the earth right now.
Prove it. Show us.

Interesting…atheists and fundamentalist religious types, are of the same mind, differing only in conclusions. Both accept only what they can point to and understand, and so limit themselves.

Atheists
Fundamentalists

Strange bedfellows.

What if an ancient Greek believer in the pantheon said that to you? How would you react?

If you were a Christian missionary in a pagan land, and if the pagans sent their best theologian to you and if he asked you this, how would you answer?

Now apply that answer to your own question.

 

[NM505StKate]

Context?

If I asked you if you thought that some people are taller than others would you ask for more context?

I believe that you know where I am going and you are reluctant to follow. That is ok and in a way good for you, may your journey be complete.

So you are trying to set up some kind of gotcha thing correct?

 

[NM505StKate]

Atheism is not a belief, nor is it a religion. It’s a non-belief.

This

 

[NM505StKate]

Well I think atheism from a rational perspective is basically bankrupt. You have to abandon important tenets of rationality to accept atheism as a viable world view. For example, in order to counter strong philosophical arguments for theism - like those of the first mover or the Kalam argument - atheist philosophers have tried to diminish the relevance of the principle of causality, that is, the assumption that in the natural world all contingent things have a cause. Hume even argued that because uncaused contingent things can be imagined, then the principle of causality could be doubted. But he failed to provide a single instance of that. Another example is the drive of modern cosmology towards multiverses. There is no compelling evidence of their existence other than the need to rationalize the fact that the known universe seems fine tuned. This is pseudo-science because it yields no testable propositions. The problem with abandoning the principle of causality is that all science is based upon it. If you can say that “this ball popped out of non-existence” then you diminish spectacularly the credibility of science as an human construct to pierce into the mysteries of the natural world. Notice that miracles do not pose a threat to that credibility because they are precisely the intervention in the natural world of the non-contingent being we call God.

Kalam… Maybe the universe existed and never started?

 

[An_Atheist]

Because non-belief is unreflective apathy. It’s a fault. Humans who do not reflect on the meaning of the universe and their lives do not exist in the end.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Why do you assume there is a meaning *to *reflect on?

Have you ever reflected on that?

 

[Lucretius]

When it comes to these questions, I am truly agnostic. The logical side of me sees absolutely no evidence for a purpose or a higher power, but the emotional side of me wants there to be.

But by the way you speak, you demonstrate that you are not neutral. You speak as if those who believe that the heart of the world is Love are delusional. You speak as if reality is oppression, mechanical, dead…

Man must choose whether the world is personal or oppressive! Both theories fit the facts, both interpretations can explain the evidence.

I sympathize with you on wanting to stay neutral, but we can’t. This decision is too important to everything that we can only delude ourselves if we think we haven’t chosen.

Ultimately all Roads lead to Rome, but a man can either travel towards or away from the eternal city.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[antunesaa]

Kalam… Maybe the universe existed and never started?

If the universe never started then most cosmologies would predict that it is even more fine-tuned than the normal sort. So probably it started with the big bang.

 

[Lucretius]

Why do you assume there is a meaning *to *reflect on?

Have you ever reflected on that?

I mean we must choose if it has meaning or not. Read my post above to see where I’m getting at.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[NM505StKate]

If the universe never started then most cosmologies would predict that it is even more fine-tuned than the normal sort. So probably it started with the big bang.

I never understood the need for “fine tuned”. Billy Lane Craig uses it a lot.